NFL gave Vilma a sworn affidavit from Gregg Williams stating Vilma offered $10k to knock out Favre (2 Viewers)

[nolaskwidd]

...the idiotic comments on this story...[/URL]

Someone recently came up with the perfect name for those anon idiotic comments: "digital graffiti."

 

[rajncajn]

Current Redskins linebacker Lorenzo Alexander, who played under Williams in Washington, said a player could get rewarded for knocking a player out of a game with a clean hit, but only after the fact - not as a pre-planned "bounty." Sometimes players wrote each other checks for such plays.
"It wasn't always Coach Williams" who paid up, Alexander said.

NFL bounties amount to incentive system run amok - CBS News

So Williams had nothing to do with adding in the part about knocking players out of the game?

 

[boutte]

i remember ed werder months ago on espn saying that williams gave vilma the 10K and told him to do that as a way to rally the team. so when vilma said he's never put any money in he's not lying but i guess that could be what williams is talking about.

If Vilma did that he's guilty as charged. It doesn't matter where the money came or if they never intended to actually pay the money, if Vilma threw 10 grand on the table said that it goes to whoever knocks Favre out of the game, then he's guilty.

 

[JonsDuu]

If Vilma did that he's guilty as charged. It doesn't matter where the money came or if they never intended to actually pay the money, if Vilma threw 10 grand on the table said that it goes to whoever knocks Favre out of the game, then he's guilty.

Agreement to injure means people involved understand within the context that there was an agreement to injure (see, I can double-speak like goodell).

If Vilma said "I give 2 high-fives to anybody who <fill in the blank with whatever potty mouth football players say> Favre/Warner" and everybody involved understood those statements are figurative, not literal, there are no agreement to injure.

GW declaration repeatedly stated there were no agreement to injure, that nobody involved in the program understood they could received award only for injuring another player.

If one want to play semantics game on whether Vilma phrasing could be construed as a pledge for injury, good luck getting an independent arbitrator or a federal judge to buy that slippy slope logic.

The only issue is -- was there an agreement to injure. Only those involved can say if there was an agreement. And all the players who had spoken out said there were no agreement to injure. Just because an outsider think they meant something else doesn't matter.

 

[krushing]

I wonder why vilma doesn't take polygraph from a highly respect testing group and challenge the two coaches to do same. They'd look like complete liars if he did that. I think it would totally force almost all public opinion to his side and totally embarrass the nfl

 

[JonsDuu]

I wonder why vilma doesn't take polygraph from a highly respect testing group and challenge the two coaches to do same. They'd look like complete liars if he did that. I think it would totally force almost all public opinion to his side and totally embarrass the nfl

They could all be honest.

Vilma did or said something which according to Vilma and 8 others was not a pledge to injure whereas as Cerullo and GW see it, do constitute a pledge to injure.

For example, when a coach scream at a player to stick that guy private part into the ground, the coach is honest when he made a declaration that he never told any player to castrate another player whereas another person who heard that would be honest when he said that coach wanted the player to castrate another player.

Now, solicitation of castration of another person is a horrendous crime. That is definitely conduct detrimental.

If words without context constitute a crime, then the entire NFL needs to be suspended.

I called it slicing the salami too thin to infer there was a pledge to injure when no payment was made for what happened to Warner/Favre, because those 2 sure did get knocked around and carted off.

 

[FullMonte]

Agreement to injure means people involved understand within the context that there was an agreement to injure (see, I can double-speak like goodell).

If Vilma said "I give 2 high-fives to anybody who <fill in the blank with whatever potty mouth football players say> Favre/Warner" and everybody involved understood those statements are figurative, not literal, there are no agreement to injure.

I don't see how anyone can try to spin Jonathan Vilma saying Ii've got $10,000 for anyone who knocks Brett Favre out of the game" as not being intent to injure. It's one thing to say that a "cart off" isn't intent to injure, and it's simply a football term for a big hit that forces a player out of the game for a play....but offering a specific sum of money for a specific outcome is about as clear cut as they come, and flashing the cash just makes it a lock.

To try and make an analogy...it's one thing to be sitting at a bar with some friends, and say "I'm gonna kill my boss if he keeps doing what he's doing," that could be spun as me being frustrated with my boss, but I am not actually going to try and physically harm him. It's something completely different to say "Hey buddy, I'll give you $10,000 to kill my boss." That's gonna be much harder to spin as just frustration...especially if I show him $10,000 in cash.

GW declaration repeatedly stated there were no agreement to injure, that nobody involved in the program understood they could received award only for injuring another player.

That's right. Williams declaration is that the program he was running did not have any agreement to injure and that players could be "fined" for such actions. However, he states that Vilma did offer money for someone to injure someone, and implies (I don't think he ever directly said it) that Vilma's actions had nothing to do with the program that Greg was running.

If one want to play semantics game on whether Vilma phrasing could be construed as a pledge for injury, good luck getting an independent arbitrator or a federal judge to buy that slippy slope logic.

Do you honestly think that a judge or arbiter would look at the statement "I've got $10,000 for anyone who knocks Brett Favre out of a game"" and say "oh, that's not a real offer to pay someone to injure Brett Favre..that's just football talk"??? I mean, the judge in the Vilma case said that in her opinion the talk about Cart Offs sounded like a bounty.

 

[nolaswede]

Funny how the NFL didn't "find" any evidence of bounties when Williams coached the Redskins & Titans. Feels like this must have been their plan all along. Suddenly Gregg Williams is the good guy according to the NFL.

Yeah right.

 

[JonsDuu]

Do you honestly think that a judge or arbiter would look at the statement "I've got $10,000 for anyone who knocks Brett Favre out of a game"" and say "oh, that's not a real offer to pay someone to injure Brett Favre..that's just football talk"??? I mean, the judge in the Vilma case said that in her opinion the talk about Cart Offs sounded like a bounty.

A friend of mine, a safety for the 2-legit-2-quit era dirty birds, said I'll give you 5 bills if you rape that m*f*, among many other potty mouth statements. Do you really believe in full context peep will take that literally?

Go listen to GW rant before the whiners game. He really solicited assault??

With regard to whether the statements were literal or figurative, well, the audience is best to answer that. And 9 of them stated under oath that they took it figuratively, if it were even spoken.

That's right. Williams declaration is that the program he was running did not have any agreement to injure and that players could be "fined" for such actions. However, he states that Vilma did offer money for someone to injure someone, and implies (I don't think he ever directly said it) that Vilma's actions had nothing to do with the program that Greg was running.

Cerullo declaration stated GW designed the program with the intention of escalating cart-off & knockout during the play-off. That GW looked at Cerullo and nodded when the alleged Vilma pledge during the cardinal game.

GW declared that he got nothing to do with vilma's pledge because it was a pledge for injury.

Oh really?? GW got nothing to do with a "knockout" -- a term he defined and a term he alone determine if a player get awarded for; where he is the "supreme court" if a player got a problem with any fines/rewards? That he didn't look at Cerullo and nodded like Don Corleone giving Nero the look to kill his own brother?

 

[WhatDat]

If this is the best evidence the NFL has, then all it says is that the Saints had a pay for performance program (which is not a suspendible offense) with a bounty placed in one of two games (the evidence is contradictory as to which game and which player the bounty was placed). Therefore, Fujita and Smith should not be suspended. Vilma was the only one named as the one who place the bounty, but for which game and on who? And did Hargrove lie about a bounty program if there was no bounty program?

 

[Superfuzz]

It still comes down to the fact that this is nothing more than Williams signing a sheaf of papers that say it happened. There is no actual physical evidence that points to that conclusion. No video of ANYONE offering money to hurt anyone and no other credible eye witnesses toeing the party line, either.

Hell, give me a piece of paper that says Williams is a walking, talking, lying, pile of **** and I'll sign it. Does my signature make it valid (in this case it is true but thats only because we believe it)? At the end of the day, the use of this "affadavit" highlights the lack of hard evidence in the NFL's case.

IMO, this hurt their case, more than anything the Plaintiffs have done so far.

 

[FullMonte]

A friend of mine, a safety for the 2-legit-2-quit era dirty birds, said I'll give you 5 bills if you rape that m*f*, among many other potty mouth statements. Do you really believe in full context peep will take that literally?

That would be a tricky one. I'd need a lot more information. However, I would say that a reasonable person would say that if Vilma waved $10,000 cash around and said he would pay it to anyone who knocked Brett Favre out of the game....that is not just a simple rah rah speech....that's an offer of cash for injury.

This would be significantly different if Vilma was accused of sitting around with Williams in private and said "Man, I'd give someone a million bucks if they could knock Brett Favre out of the game." That's something that could be spun as just talk...but standing up in front of everyone waving cash and saying it's for whoever knocks him out of the game...A reasonable person is going to assume that's a legitimate offer, unless there is some kind of context to say otherwise.

Go listen to GW rant before the whiners game. He really solicited assault??

How about this first....go and re-read my message, and show me where I said GW solicited assault.

Cerullo declaration stated GW designed the program with the intention of escalating cart-off & knockout during the play-off. That GW looked at Cerullo and nodded when the alleged Vilma pledge during the cardinal game.

GW declared that he got nothing to do with vilma's pledge because it was a pledge for injury.

Yes, and there is a contradiction between the two that someone will eventually need to sort out. But, as I said elsewhere....that contradiction doesn't really affect the meaning of Vilma's statement...it only affects whether or not Williams was involved with it.

Oh really?? GW got nothing to do with a "knockout" -- a term he defined and a term he alone determine if a player get awarded for; where he is the "supreme court" if a player got a problem with any fines/rewards? That he didn't look at Cerullo and nodded like Don Corleone giving Nero the look to kill his own brother?

That's one that's going to be difficult to unravel, but it's not really relevant to the discussion of whether or not Vilma's statement was simple "footbal talk" or was an actual offer of cash for injury. I haven't heard anything to say that the context somehow made his offer a figurative offer and not a literal one.